However, I’m a AAA gamedev CTO and they might have been telling me what the card means to me.
P.S. Also, VR. For VR you need 2x4k at 90+ stable fps. There's (almost) no vr games though
What "modern games" and "modern cards" are you specifically talking about here? There are plenty of AAA games released last years that you can do 4K at 60fps with a RTX 3090 for example.
I’d say the comparison is what’s faulty, not the example.
I’ve done tons of custom stuff but was at a point where I didn’t have the time for a custom loop. Just wanted plug and play.
Seen some people talking down the block, but honestly I run 50c under saturated load at 400 watts, +225 core, +600 memory with a hot spot of 60c and VRAM of 62c. Not amazing but it’s not holding the card back. That’s with the Phanteks T30’s at about 1200RPM.
Stock cooler I could never get the card stable despite new pads and paste. I was running 280 watts, barely able to run -50 on the core and no offset on memory. That would STILL hit 85c core, 95c hotspot and memory.
Not when you turn on ray tracing.
Also 60fps is pretty low, certainly isn't "high fps" anyway
You can't get high frame rates with path tracing and 4K. It just doesn't happen. You need to enable DLSS and frame gen to get 100fps with more complete ray and path tracing implementations.
People might be getting upset because the 4090 is WAY more power than games need, but there are games that try and make use of that power and are actually limited by the 4090.
Case in point Cyberpunk and Indiana Jones with path tracing don't get anywhere near 100FPS with native resolution.
Now many might say that's just a ridiculous ask, but that's what GP was talking about here. There's no way you'd get more than 10-15fps (if that) with path tracing at 8K.
Cyberpunk native 4k + path tracing gets sub-20fps on a 4090 for anyone unfamiliar with how demanding this is. Nvidia's own 5090 announcement video showcased this as getting a whopping... 28 fps: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ff...
I’m sure some will disagree with this but most PC gamers I talk to want to be at 90FPS minimum. I’d assume if you’re spending $1600+ on a GPU you’re pretty particular about your experience.
I don’t really mind low frame rates, but latency is often noticeable and annoying. I often wonder if high frame rates are papering over some latency problems in modern engines. Buffering frames or something like that.
Uhhhhhmmmmmm....what are you smoking?
Almost no one is playing competitive shooters and such at 4k. For those games you play at 1080p and turn off lots of eye candy so you can get super high frame rates because that does actually give you an edge.
People playing at 4k are doing immersive story driven games and consistent 60fps is perfectly fine for that, you don't really get a huge benefit going higher.
People that want to split the difference are going 1440p.
For me, I'd rather play a story based shooter at 1440p @ 144Hz than 4k @ 60Hz.
Also nobody is buying a 4090/5090 for a "fine" experience. Yes 60fps is fine. But better than that is expected/desired at this price point.
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/geforce-rtx-3090-8...
It's uncommon, sure, but as mentioned it was sold to me as being a development board for future resolutions.
On the planet? Many people. Maybe you're thinking 12K or 16K.
The value just wasn't there and probably won't ever be for most use cases. XR equipment might be an exception, video editing another.
Someone else probably said that years ago when everyone was rocking 1080/1440p screens.
How many of the cards of that time would you call “4K cards”? Even the Titan X that came a couple of years later doesn’t really cut it.
There’s such a thing as being too early to the game.
What gamers look for is more framerate not particularly resolution. Most new gaming monitors are focusing on high refresh rates.
8K feels like a waste of compute for a very diminished return compared to 4K. I think 8K only makes sense when dealing with huge displays, I’m talking beyond 83 inches, we are still far from that.
Which would then imply that you don't need a display as big as 83" to see the benefits from 8K. Still, we're talking about very large panels here, of the kind that wouldn't even fit many computer desks, so yeah...
I think the textures and geometry would have the same resolution (or is that not the case? but in 4K if you walk closer to the wall you'd want higher texture resolution as well anyway, if the graphics artists have made the assets at that resolution anyway)
8K screen resolution requires 132 megabytes of memory to store the pixels (for 32-bit color), that doesn't explain gigabytes of extra VRAM
I'd be curious to know what information I'm missing
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/technologies/8k/
That said, I recall that the media was more enthusiastic about christening the 4090 as an 8K card than Nvidia was:
https://wccftech.com/rtx-4090-is-the-first-true-8k-gaming-gp...